Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Acunetix vs Invicti comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 8, 2024
 

Categories and Ranking

Acunetix
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
11th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
31
Ranking in other categories
Application Security Tools (12th), Vulnerability Management (17th), DevSecOps (5th)
Invicti
Ranking in Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
14th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.1
Number of Reviews
28
Ranking in other categories
API Security (5th), Dynamic Application Security Testing (DAST) (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of December 2024, in the Static Application Security Testing (SAST) category, the mindshare of Acunetix is 3.3%, up from 2.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Invicti is 1.4%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Static Application Security Testing (SAST)
 

Featured Reviews

AnubhavGoswami - PeerSpot reviewer
Attractive automated reports with boost user productivity and an easy setup
The primary use is mainly related to vulnerability assessment, including both public and internal IP addresses By using this tool, we have reduced the workload and increased the productivity of users. It generates automated reports. This feature is beneficial when sharing reports with clients as…
Amr Abdelnaser - PeerSpot reviewer
A safe solution used to detective vulnerabilities for dynamic and complex testing
The Invicti is the scope application tool. The solution is installed on-premise but could be installed as a web version. Starting from the latest version, the web version could be used. They have a web application server. The deployment of the solution involves installing the EXE and configuring your machine.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"I find it to be one of the most comprehensive tools, with support for manual intervention."
"Overall, it's a very good tool and a very good engine."
"Acunetix is the best service in the world. It is easy to manage. It gives a lot of information to the users to see and identify problems in their site or applications. It works very well."
"It comes equipped with an internal applicator, which automatically identifies and addresses vulnerabilities within the program."
"The usability and overall scan results are good."
"By integrating with CI/CD tools, it enables a shift-left approach in the development process."
"The tool's most valuable feature is scan configurations. We use it for external physical applications. The scanning time depends on the application's code."
"It's very user-friendly for the testing teams. It's very easy for them to understand things and to fix vulnerabilities."
"I am impressed by the whole technology that they are using in this solution. It is really fast. When using netscan, the confirmation that it gives on the vulnerabilities is pretty cool. It is really easy to configure a scan in Netsparker Web Application Security Scanner. It is also really easy to deploy."
"Netsparker has valuable features, including the ability to scan our website, an interactive approach, and security data integration."
"It has very good integration with the CI/CD pipeline."
"The most attractive feature was the reporting review tool. The reporting review was very impressive and produced very fruitful reports."
"The best features of Invicti are its ability to confirm access vulnerabilities, SSL injection vulnerabilities, and its connectors to other security tools."
"The dashboard is really cool, and the features are really good. It tells you about the software version you're using in your web application. It gives you the entire technology stack, and that really helps. Both web and desktop apps are good in terms of application scanning. It has a lot of security checks that are easily customizable as per your requirements. It also has good customer support."
"High level of accuracy and quick scanning."
"One of the features I like about this program is the low number of false positives and the support it offers."
 

Cons

"Integration into other tools is very limited for Acunetix. While we're trying to incorporate a CI/CD process where we're integrating with JIRA and we're integrating with Jenkins and Chef, it becomes problematic. Other tools give you a high integration capability to connect into different solutions that you may already have, like JIRA."
"There are some versions of the solution that are not as stable as others."
"The jargon used makes it difficult for project managers to understand the issues, and the technical explanations used make it difficult for developers to understand issues. These things should be simplified much more. That would be very helpful for us when explaining to them what needs to be fixed. The report output needs to be simplified."
"While we do have it integrated with other solutions, it could still offer more integrations."
"Tools that would allow us to work more efficiently with the mobile environment, with Android and iOS."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing."
"There's a clear need for a reduction in pricing to make the service more accessible."
"The solution is generally stable, however, there might be room for improvement regarding glitches or bugs."
"The proxy review, the use report views, the current use tool and the subset requests need some improvement. It was hard to understand how to use them."
"The licensing model should be improved to be more cost-effective. There are URL restrictions that consume our license. Compared to other DAST solutions and task tools like WebInspect and Burp Enterprise, Invicti is very expensive. The solution’s scanning time is also very long compared to other DAST tools. It might be due to proof-based scanning."
"Asset scanning could be better. Once, it couldn't scan assets, and the issue was strange. The price doesn't fit the budget of small and medium-sized businesses."
"It would be better for listing and attacking Java-based web applications to exploit vulnerabilities."
"The solution needs to make a more specific report."
"They don't really provide the proof of concept up to the level that we need in our organization. We are a consultancy firm, and we provide consultancy for the implementation and deployment solutions to our customers. When you run the scans and the scan is completed, it only shows the proof of exploit, which really doesn't work because the tool is running the scan and exploiting on the read-only form. You don't really know whether it is actually giving the proof of exploit. We cannot prove it manually to a customer that the exploit is genuine. It is really hard to perform it manually and prove it to the concerned development, remediation, and security teams. It is currently missing the static application security part of the application security, especially web application security. It would be really cool if they can integrate a SAS tool with their dynamic one."
"The license could be better. It would help if they could allow us to scan multiple URLs on the same license. It's a major hindrance that we are facing while scanning applications, and we have to be sure that the URLs are the same and not different so that we do not end up consuming another license for it. Netsparker is one of the costliest products in the market. The licensing is tied to the URL, and it's restricted. If you have a URL that you scanned once, like a website, you cannot retry that same license. If you are scanning the same website but in a different domain or different URL, you might end up paying for a second license. It would also be better if they provided proper support for multi-factor authentications. In the next release, I would like them to include good multi-factor authentication support."
"Maybe the ability to make a good reporting format is needed."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing and licensing are reasonable to a point. In order to run multiple scans at a time, we are going to have to purchase a 100 count license, which is an overkill. Though, compared to what we were paying for, the cost seems reasonable."
"Implementing Acunetix needs a medium or larger business agency, because you need some money to get Acunetix. It is costly, but if you care about your agency's security, then maybe it's a cost that might help you in the future."
"When compared with other products, the pricing is a little bit high. But it gives value for the price. It serves the purpose and is worthwhile for the price we pay."
"It is a bit expensive. If you need to check five applications, you have to pay almost 14,000. It is an agreement for two years at 7,000 per year for only five applications. You cannot change the applications in the license. So, you are stuck with the same license for the five applications for one full year."
"The cost is based on two types of licenses, ConsultLite, and ConsultPlus, as well as the number of domains that are scanned."
"I would say that Acunetix is expensive because there are products on the market with similar features that are equally or better-priced."
"The costs aren't very expensive. It costs around $3000 or $4000."
"The pricing is a little high, and moreover, it's kind of domain-based."
"I think that price it too high, like other Security applications such as Acunetix, WebInspect, and so on."
"Netsparker is one of the costliest products in the market. It would help if they could allow us to scan multiple URLs on the same license."
"The price should be 20% lower"
"The solution is very expensive. It comes with a yearly subscription. We were paying 6000 dollars yearly for unlimited scans. We have three licenses; basic, business, and ultimate. We need ultimate because it has unlimited scan numbers."
"We never had any issues with the licensing; the price was within our assigned limits."
"Invicti is best suited for large enterprises. I don't think small and medium-sized businesses can afford it. Maintenance costs aren't that great."
"OWASP Zap is free and it has live updates, so that's a big plus."
"We are using an NFR license and I do not know the exact price of the NFR license. I think 20 FQDN for three years would cost around 35,000 US Dollars."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Static Application Security Testing (SAST) solutions are best for your needs.
824,067 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Government
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Educational Organization
56%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Computer Software Company
6%
Manufacturing Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?
The tool's most valuable feature is scan configurations. We use it for external physical applications. The scanning time depends on the application's code.
What is your primary use case for Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?
I use Acunetix for penetration testing purposes. This is the primary use case.
What advice do you have for others considering Acunetix Vulnerability Scanner?
I rate the overall solution nine out of ten. I prefer Acunetix for its more precise and accurate results.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Netsparker Web Application Security Scanner?
As a technical user, I do not handle pricing or licensing, but I am aware that Invicti offers flexible licensing models based on organizational needs.
What do you like most about Invicti?
The most valuable feature of Invicti is getting baseline scanning and incremental scan.
What needs improvement with Invicti?
Currently, there is nothing I would like to improve.
 

Comparisons

 

Also Known As

AcuSensor
Netsparker
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Joomla!, Digicure, Team Random, Credit Suisse, Samsung, Air New Zealand
Samsung, The Walt Disney Company, T-Systems, ING Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about Acunetix vs. Invicti and other solutions. Updated: December 2024.
824,067 professionals have used our research since 2012.